Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…

Since the original data was still available from the original sources, (although it would take some effort to collect it all again) it appears that they thought there was no need to keep unnecessary duplicates.

The difficulty is that various mergers and who-knows-what kinds of adjustments and corrections were applied to this data to arrive at the “Homogenized, value added” data they now have. The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file indicates that their temperature database was an ungodly mess, at what looks like some point after mergers had been performed.

From the correspondence about FOIA requests that various people have posted, CRU refused to release a list of exactly which original data had been used to compile the homogenized version. There is a suspicion that they never kept one to begin with: Better to stonewall the FOIA requests than to give their critics fodder. (The e-mails have more than one instance of that attitude). The whole data handling process seems to have been incredibly sloppy, haphazard, and above all, undocumented.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

This does not make sense to me because who did they get the data from originally? I thought it was NOAA who was the main organization for recording this temperature data and if the UEA tossed it then they should be able to go to NOAA and get the original data to check the numbers.

While I agree with the whole climategate hoax and what they have done, this is one point being discussed I disagree with.

The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

According to the TimesOnline, the data were dumped in the 1980s. But that doesn’t jive with what Phil Jones wrote in an email in 2005:

“… The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.“

If he was threatening to delete the data in 2005 he must have still had it in his possession. How do we know that Jones didn’t delete the raw data this year to prevent an FOIA release? That would be a criminal act. I don’t see how they are going to keep their timeline straight.

If Pons and Fleischmann had been able to act like Mann, Jones, and other CRU scientists, they may still be doing research on cold fusion using grants from the taxpayer. It was their sharing of data with other scientists that did them in because no one could reproduce their results. If they could have hidden their data and controlled the peer review process like these climate scientists, they might have milked their fake research on “green” cold fusion for years.

The warm-mongers are in need of a science lesson from Sherlock Holmes:

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
— Arthur Conan Doyle

On November 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

*Best thing to happen would be for the truly conservative wing of the GOP to get out front and hammer this thing home as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind;

You poor poor naive child. There is no truly conservative wing of the GOP.

Can two or three people be a “wing”?

On November 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, SpeakEasy said:

What should occur is a public announcement that any conclusions based on the previous data is suspect and therefor invalid. They should announce a new study that is completely transparent and open to any and all scrutiny. And they should announce that NO policies will be made on AGW until it can be proven to be more than an elaborate hoax. That is what should happen. Any bets?

Oh, who CARES about all that! They have consensus remember?

/sarc

The records suggest these were not social calls for Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work to curb global warming.

Maybe Jugears wanted some protocol lessons on how to accept HIS Nobel Prize so he went right to the horses azz.

Seems pretty clear he needs lessons on protocol.

As for Climategate, I wonder if private citizens began submitting complaints to various federal agencies Inspectors General, with copies of the damning computer code attached, if they would get serious about investigating this massive fraud.

One can hope that is what Inhofe did in his letters to various federal agencies.

T-Bone said: This is how Minnesota counts senate votes.

Speaking of Minnesotans…

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

AlohaGuy said: Because it’s all BS.

I don’t think that because there is/was a real temperature record ~somewhere~. However, the idea that they EVER actually had that record or actually used it at all if they did have it are certainly two valid doubts.

Without the orginal data there is no means to verify their ‘massaged’ data so there is no choice other than to take all of their maassaged data plus everything else that was generated from it and – CHUCK IT. How else can they expect people to react after reading their snide email remarks? We should now trust them?

None…

It is because they said so!!!!

Wise up, Herr Gibbs has spoken.

Herr Gibbs has spoken.
Herr Gibbs has spoken.
Herr Gibbs has spoken.